Arkansas & Texas Grain Co. v. Young & Fresch Grain Co.

• Decision Date: 09 July 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 142,79 Ark. 603
• Parties: ARKANSAS & TEXAS GRAIN COMPANY v. YOUNG & FRESCH GRAIN COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

96 S.W. 142

79 Ark. 603

ARKANSAS & TEXAS GRAIN COMPANY v. YOUNG & FRESCH GRAIN COMPANY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 9, 1906

Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge, on exchange of circuits; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

L. A Byrne, for appellant.

1. When appellee gave permission to inspect the corn before receiving it, this conferred the right to reject it; and if the right to inspect did not exist under the original contract of purchase, but was subsequently given, it was a waiver of the original contract.

2. When the appellee's manager came to Texarkana, took possession of and resold the corn, appellee was thereby estopped to assert this claim.

3. It was appellee's duty, before it could hold appellant for any balance after reselling the corn, to notify appellant of its intention to deal with the corn in this way. 53 Ark. 155; 2 Benjamin on Sales, Rev. Ed. 1023; 48 Mich. 224; 28 Ind 365; 45 Ill. 76; 82 Ill. 524; 57 Ark. 266.

W. H Arnold, for appellee.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J.

This is an appeal by the Arkansas & Texas Grain Company from a judgment rendered against it in favor of the Young & Fresch Grain Company for damages for breach of a contract to purchase two carloads of corn. The corn was shipped from St. Louis to defendant at Texarkana. The defendant, on arrival of the corn at Texarkana, refused to accept it unless first allowed to inspect it. This permission was granted, and defendant, after inspecting the corn, rejected it. Thereupon plaintiff sent an agent from St. Louis, who took charge of the corn and resold it to defendant for a lower price, defendant having offered the best price that could be obtained in that market. But the corn had become heated and injured after shipment, and by reason of the refusal of defendant to accept, and the consequent delay, the corn had sustained further injury, and the price received was below the contract price, and plaintiffs brought this action to recover the difference. The case was submitted to the court sitting without a jury, and he found that the corn was of the kind ordered by defendant, and that it was in good condition at the time it was delivered to the railway company in St. Louis. The court further found that one of the conditions of the sale was that the liability of the plaintiff to defendant should cease when the corn was delivered in good condition to the railway company for transportation to Texarkana, and that by the terms of the contract the plaintiff was not responsible for the heating of the corn after delivery to the carrier. He therefore found in favor of plaintiff, and gave judgment against defendant for the sum of $ 180.

The evidence was sufficient to support the finding made by the court, which, like the verdict of a jury, is conclusive on all questions of fact upon which the evidence is conflicting. Nor do we find any error of law that requires a reversal of the judgment. The contention of appellant that the permission to inspect the corn included the right to reject can not be sustained. Plaint...